On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 16:57:08 +0600, Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis at googlemail.com> wrote:
>> Humans don't work that way. If the words "HTML (WARNING)" or "XHTML
>> (WARNING)" started appearing next to over 90 percent of search results,
>> people would not think that something was wrong with 90 percent of Web
>> pages. They would think that something was wrong with the search
>> engine.
> I see no reason why that should be the case; and short of actual user
> tests with well-designed warnings I don't suppose we'll ever be sure.
>> I would however definitely suggest better messages, since "WARNING"
> verges on being meaningless. Perhaps "HTML (corrupted)" and "XHTML
> (corrupted)" for documents that cite (or imply) a standard document type
> but clearly fail to conform to it, "text/html (non-standard variant)"
> for text/html documents that do not cite (or imply) a standard document
> type, and "XHTML (broken)" for non-well-formed XHTML.
Maybe the other way round? "Valid [X]HTML" on valid documents?
--
Alexey Feldgendler <alexey at feldgendler.ru>
[ICQ: 115226275] http://feldgendler.livejournal.com